https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63326
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63326
Bug ID: 63326
Summary: pragma GCC causes wrong code generation
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63325
Dmitry G. Dyachenko changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63325
Bug ID: 63325
Summary: [5.0 regression] ICE fold check: original tree changed
by fold
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3885
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||draqsn at mail dot ru
--- Comment #13 fro
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3885
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #12
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63324
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44272
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44272
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63324
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
Actually bug 3885.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 3885 ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63324
Bug ID: 63324
Summary: hexidecimal integer constant and addition
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63323
Bug ID: 63323
Summary: "confused by earlier errors, bailing out" with no
other errors
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63255
--- Comment #4 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
Seems to be fixed, but I'm leaving the closing step to the reporter (Andreas).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61825
--- Comment #9 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
Seems to be fixed, but I'm leaving the closing step to the reporter (Rainer).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #29 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
Created attachment 33528
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33528&action=edit
A trial patch
The patch is to refrain from changing to class R0_REGS for r943.
With the above 2 patches, th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #28 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
Created attachment 33527
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33527&action=edit
Another reduced test case (with "-m4 -ml -O2 -std=gnu99")
Here is a test case for the ICE in assign_by_spill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #27 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
Created attachment 33526
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33526&action=edit
A trial patch
It disables equiv substitution when the equiv includes some reg
assigned to a small register c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #26 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
Created attachment 33525
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33525&action=edit
.reload dump file
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55212
--- Comment #25 from Kazumoto Kojima ---
Created attachment 33524
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33524&action=edit
Reduced test case for ICE in assign_by_spill
I've looked into what is going on for the ICE in assign_by_spil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58757
--- Comment #3 from Marc Glisse ---
(In reply to Uroš Bizjak from comment #2)
> Well, the testcase does fail on alpha:
Thanks. In the original testcase (
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-09/msg00875.html ) I was xfailing on
alpha, but Jos
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58757
--- Comment #2 from Uroš Bizjak ---
As the author of the testcase kindly advises:
/* Test that the smallest positive value is not 0. This needs to be true
even when denormals are not supported, so we do not pass any flag
like -mieee. If i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63322
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
--- Comment #1 from Jonath
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63322
Bug ID: 63322
Summary: std::atomic where T is not trivially copyable
should be disabled.
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63320
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63321
Bug ID: 63321
Summary: [SH] Unused T bit result of shll / shlr insns
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63320
Bug ID: 63320
Summary: [5 Regression] bogus ‘this’ was not captured for this
lambda function error
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: norma
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50807
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63225
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62318
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I don't understand your concern, you don't need anyone's permission to use a
published algorithm. A specific implementation of the algorithm would be
covered by copyright, but not the abstract algorithm.
I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63319
Bug ID: 63319
Summary: [5 Regression] ICE: Segmentation fault building qt5
with pch
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61283
Hans-Peter Nilsson changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61283
--- Comment #4 from Hans-Peter Nilsson ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #3)
> Does this still reproduce?
It still does at least for MMIX as described, at r215419.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62318
--- Comment #6 from Jim Michaels ---
ummm. I could get personal permission to use the algorithm. but that does not
give gnu permission to use the algorithm. that's why I posted this here. that
does not necessarily mean I could post the algorithm
33 matches
Mail list logo